Compliance is not enough

Monday’s ABC Four Corners program "Don't Speak" has cast a spotlight on the critical issue of workplace bullying and the harmful culture of silence that persists in many organisations. People sometimes ask for clear examples of the kind of behaviour that the Psychosocial Hazards updates to Work Health and Safety legislation cover. The 4 Corners “Don’t Speak” program gives many clear examples across the full spectrum. It serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences when these risks are ignored, including severe mental health impacts and, in the worst cases, loss of life. We need to do better!

Organisations are already starting to see action based on the new laws. But guess what - changing legislation on its own, won't change behaviour. 

As in physical safety, exemplar organisations have already embedded culture which supports speaking up, asking questions, encouraging diversity, respect, and valuing contribution. They go way beyond compliance, embedding psychological safety and responsibility as key ingredients of high performance.

There’s many practical ways to do exactly that. What does your organisation do about it?

If you’d like a hand with it in your teams, let me know I’d be delighted to assist.

The Dark Side

Psychological Safety (PS) is confidence that you won’t be embarrassed, rejected or punished (by boss or team) for speaking up, sharing ideas, asking questions and providing feedback. 

So far we’ve seen that Musk encourages all of these, especially in the development of the products his companies create. It is far from a perfect picture however. Let's look at Musk’s behaviour which reduces PS. BTW, few (If any) of us  are perfect in this regard. This is intended to provoke reflection.

• “You’re an idiot” - Musk will often use language like this. It damages PS  by  directly attacking a person, rather than an open conversation about the problem. It also doesn't give any suggestion or support for improvement.

• “Your resignation will be accepted” - When people push back on timeframes, safety or variability of an idea/solution, Musk resorts to ordering them to do it while threatening their job. There are examples of this making teams go further/faster than they thought possible, but they don’t feel safe. This kind of behaviour leads to people covering things up, rather than telling the full story. Arguably, it was precisely the same behaviour that caused the Challenger space shuttle explosion.

• Ignoring sound advice - Musk puts arbitrary time frames on delivery that are often completely unobtainable. He has a litany of promised features behind him that have been confidently announced and not achieved. Parts of his team acknowledge that this has pushed them further/faster, however there is also chaos in the wake. I like Gilbert Enoka’s (former All Black’s Mindset coach) approach to this. He says targets need to be out of reach but not out of sight. When we can’t conceive it being achievable, a target can demotivate. If it’s too easy it won’t motivate us either. Musk could maintain the relentless drive for innovation and progress while making it more safe (and fun) by setting better gaps. It would do a lot for the believability of his promises too.

How do you personally create or contribute to the PS of your working environment? Are your behaviours net positive or negative?

If you want some insight into one of the most controversial and significant “movers and shakers” of our time, I’d highly recommend “Elon Musk”, by Walter Isaacson. It’s current up to 2023. The book was the catalyst for this series.

Isolation - What Does it Mean at Work?

16 years ago, I did a 12 day solo survival walk. An isolated part of Western Australia was the backdrop. Sourcing food and water from the land. Sleeping on the ground in just my clothes. When I first started, being alone and unplugged was an absolute luxury, but as the days wore on the effort of doing 100% of everything and having no one to share the scene, decisions, insights etc became wearing. There were moments when I felt the impact of isolation at a deep and visceral level. Without an external reference point, my mind explored all manner of answers to the question “Who am I?”. Some of it was useful and enjoyable. Some of it had a darker edge.

Since then there’s been a regular stream of survival shows that leave people alone. There’s a consistent pattern to the exits. Early on people with insufficient skill or experience quickly pull out and retreat to home. Of the people left, many have the skills to survive a very long time, if not indefinitely. Eventually, they all quit because they crave the company of others. Assuming no medical reasons for withdrawal, it's the isolation that gets people. We are meant to be with other people.

It’s no surprise to me that isolated work (including work from home) is listed as one of the potential risks in workplace psychosocial hazards. The baseline is to consider how we facilitate connection and inclusion in inherently isolated working settings. But I reckon the gold standard is to become really aware of how we potentially isolate people in any setting.

Who has access to resources and opportunities?

Are we Cliquey?

Are people snubbed or shunned for behaviour, appearance, professional background, belief, or any other factor?

How are social connections working? Everything from casual chats over coffee to formal events.

While we don’t have to include everyone in everything all of the time (That would get really cumbersome), we should be having regular conversations about what connection looks like in our workplace. How is it at yours?

How quickly will we evolve?

The recent formalising of Psychosocial Hazards in Australian Work Health and Safety legislation is a fantastic evolution. We have been aware of the risks to people’s well being (Both mental and physical) from Psychosocial Hazards for a long time, and it’s taken a while for it to be seen as a hazard that needs to be actively managed.

Early in the industrial age accidents and fatalities were an accepted and expected outcome in work environments. The attitude was largely “You know the risks, so the responsibility is on you. By the way, it might not end well”. Over time safety and risk became the subject of increased awareness and responsibility for employers, transitioning through cultures dominated by compliance/policy/procedure and ultimately growing to deep safety cultures. The exemplars of this are zero blame cultures where safety is prioritised over production. Everyone is empowered to call a halt if something seems unsafe, and there are continual conversations about how it can be made more safe.

We are just emerging from the equivalent of “you know the risks” in PsychoSocial Hazards. You can track it in laguage like:

• Stress is part of the job, suck it up

• Go to the hardware and buy a bucket of harden up

• Your emotions have no place at work

• Everyone is busy, deal with it

• Yes he’s a bully, but he’s also a great performer we’ll all just have to put up with it

These are fading, but they haven’t gone away. We now have a regulatory environment. How quickly can we evolve to cultures of deep responsibility where we are encouraged to call out unsafe practice, hold each other to account, educate rather than blame? We have a road map in the physical WHS space that has been a roughly 200 year evolution. Let's not take that long on psychosocial hazards. The clock has been ticking for a while.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be exploring some of the hazards named in the excellent Worksafe “CODE OF PRACTICE - Psychosocial hazards in the workplace” and especially how these contribute to a high performance culture as well as one free from harm. Just like physical safety, it makes sense regardless of what metric you measure.